We should save people who will, in turn, save banks.

[demgurl]

In my mind, why does it have to be one or the other? Aren't banks going under because of all the foreclosures? Why only solve half the problem? I propose we save all the people about to have their house foreclosed. If we give them the money to save their house, the money goes to the bank and then the bank is not short of cash. The people have a house and more money to spend to help the economy. This should be a win-win situation.

If the government does not trust the people to pay the banks for the houses, they should give the banks the money on behalf of the people to save their houses.

Does this not make sense? Too much sense? Yes, I know some of you will say the government is not interested in saving the people but I am talking about a real solution here, not what the government thinks.

Maybe I am way off base but this seems like it would go a long way in helping save our economy and keeping families together in houses.

[knowbody0]

1. the problem is that this would be a loan

with no collateral. that's basically the problem. way too much "loaned" with nothing to offset the liability. really bad accounting.

[mmonk]

2. Loan restructuring would be a good idea.

The more foreclosures, the more all this will driven into the ground.